Anonymous Poll: Should homosexuals be allowed to get married?

[narbeZ]

No. It's just not right.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by narbeZ

No. It's just not right.

Good logic.

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by narbeZ

.thgir ton tjuj s'tI .oN

Fixed your post for you.

[GGG]

The poll I would have liked to have seen is an option for Separate but Equal. I would like to know how many people are just hung up on the word.

I can understand people who don't want what they feel is their word being used to describe something they disagree with. Despite the word having non-christian roots it has become a very powerful and symbolic word for many people. And if they feel offended by it being changed by the government I can understand where they are coming from and there is some logice to it. I can't understand people just saying no to equal rights to all citizens.

So nabreZ would you be alright with all rights being conferred on same-sex unions but the government calling it something else?

[Montana Moe]

Separate but equal does not exist, one group always gets shorted/taken advantage of.

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpos...2&postcount=64

[MacGr3gor]

After lurking this thread i want to say my piece.

I voted yes. Why? Because I cannot for the life of me think of a reason why not. What would gay marriage really change? Not a goddamn thing.

On a related note, why is it that the Catholic church has to be dragged kicking and screaming into a world of tolerance that it claims to hold a monopoly over?

[Pastiche]

Originally Posted by Pinner

Backwards huh, think about what's backwards Thor. Two males from the same species, mating in a way that is prone to spreading life threatening and fatal diseases with no possibility of reproduction.

Bleh.

Homosexuality has been observed in many different species and has been a part of human civilization for thousands of years. It's not that backwards actually.

As per the life threatening diseases, homosexuality is not biologically more at risk than heterosexuality. There's no first principles argument that homosexuality is more prone to disease. The reason some STIs are more prevalent is to due with cultural reasons more than anything. That should be no reason for limiting access to marriage.

[Pinner]

Originally Posted by Pastiche

Bleh.

Homosexuality has been observed in many different species and has been a part of human civilization for thousands of years. It's not that backwards actually.

There wouldn't be human civilization if it was normal to be gay. Get it now? Real simple.

Originally Posted by Pastiche

As per the life threatening diseases, homosexuality is not biologically more at risk than heterosexuality.

Well, anal sex is. Especially involving gay men.

[Montana Moe]

Originally Posted by Pinner

There wouldn't be human civilization if it was normal to be gay. Get it now? Real simple.



Well, anal sex is. Especially involving gay men.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Pinner

There wouldn't be human civilization if it was normal to be gay. Get it now? Real simple.



Well, anal sex is. Especially involving gay men.

Lets assume for a moment that being Gay is abnormal, a devient genetic mutation if you will. Just because it isn't normal or a genetic mutation that will ensure the species survival does that mean they should be denied rights that those whose genetic mutations will propagate and ensure the survival of the human race.

[Pastiche]

Originally Posted by Pinner

There wouldn't be human civilization if it was normal to be gay. Get it now? Real simple.

It's actually not that simple. To reiterate, homosexuality has been around for a long time and is observed in other species meaning that it's not abnormal. Bisexuality would further your 'human civilization' just fine. Would that then be normal enough?

Well, anal sex is. Especially involving gay men.

What makes anal sex between gay men biologically more risky for the transmission of STIs? As I understand, rates of infection between vaginal and anal sex is similar. Why is a male recipient more likely to be infected than a female recipient?

My original point was that cultural reasons are the big drivers of STI rates. Those reasons could be that some groups have sex more often or with more partners thus increasing the likelihood of infection. But there's no biological reasoning that would say that homosexuals are more likely to transmit disease.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Pastiche

What makes anal sex between gay men biologically more risky for the transmission of STIs? As I understand, rates of infection between vaginal and anal sex is similar. Why is a male recipient more likely to be infected than a female recipient?

Actually this part is true, anal sex is more risky, just because the tissue is so much easier to damage. However this is not just the domain of gay men. Plus, it's a fallacy that all gay men engage in anal sex.

Something most doctors won't tell you (because it encourages bad practices) is that it's actually somewhat difficult (or at least the lowest of all methods) to get HIV through vaginal intercourse. HIV spreads most easily through blood. That's why needle sharing is so dangerous. That's why anal sex is riskier, because those tissues are more easily stressed.

I'm not saying don't wrap it up. You can still get HIV through normal vaginal sex for sure. I'm just saying, the way it was explained to me by one doctor, is that it's unlikely.

Plus you'll want to wrap it up to stop the spread of other STI's anyway.

I do want to say again, that this is a pretty weak argument against gay marriage though. There's danger in many things people do. Straight or gay, sexual or non-sexual. Doesn't make it wrong or bad.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Actually this part is true, anal sex is more risky, just because the tissue is so much easier to damage. However this is not just the domain of gay men. Plus, it's a fallacy that all gay men engage in anal sex.

Something most doctors won't tell you (because it encourages bad practices) is that it's actually somewhat difficult (or at least the lowest of all methods) to get HIV through vaginal intercourse. HIV spreads most easily through blood. That's why needle sharing is so dangerous. That's why anal sex is riskier, because those tissues are more easily stressed.

I'm not saying don't wrap it up. You can still get HIV through normal vaginal sex for sure. I'm just saying, the way it was explained to me by one doctor, is that it's unlikely.

Plus you'll want to wrap it up to stop the spread of other STI's anyway.

I do want to say again, that this is a pretty weak argument against gay marriage though. There's danger in many things people do. Straight or gay, sexual or non-sexual. Doesn't make it wrong or bad.

I'm not going to look it up so don't take my word for it, but I was told that if you have unprotected sex with a woman who is HIV positive, it is something like a 1/2000 chance of getting it. Oral sex is a theoretical risk, but even more unlikely.

Obviously, it is little consolation to someone who does contact it that way, but in reality, HIV isn't that easy to catch.

The only reason why I know this is because I had an HIV scare before and was forced to look into this stuff. I was tested several times over 2 years and never tested positive, but even to this day any time I get a cold or a rash (or any ailment), it's always in the back of my mind. It really sucks.

[Daradon]

^^^ Yeah that's along the lines of what I heard.

It is possible, but it's unlikely. And in fact when it does happen, it's usually because there is blood from damage to one of the parties.

As I said (and I want to reiterate cause I know how boards can be) my bringing this up in no way 1. endorses unsafe sex, or 2. bolsters the anti-gay marriage platform.

Just thought I'd put some info out there.

And no, I am not a doctor and not qualified to give medical advice (though I'm not sure I gave any).

[starseed]

Originally Posted by Pinner

There wouldn't be human civilization if it was normal to be gay. Get it now? Real simple.

Thank you. I was having a real terrible night. First, some rejects pull me in to some BS "birthday party". Since when is it OK to have a birthday party when you are 24? Grow up, bitch. Then I forget the words to an Abba song.

AN ABBA SONG.

Then I finally wander in to my bed at 2:00am only to realize I could not possibly force myself to sleep. And I have to start getting ready for work in 1.5 hours.

That was washed away with glee when I read your statement, and believed that you actually believe what you wrote.

I wish Alexander had finished taking over the world, and set the planet on course to become a true homosexual paradise. But of course, he had to die too soon only to watch from Sto'Vo'Kor as his civilization decayed due to heterosexual decadence.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by Pinner

There wouldn't be human civilization if it was normal to be gay. Get it now? Real simple.

We flourished pretty well for those first 2 or 3 thousand years when no one cared.

[Devils'Advocate]

Heh. By Pinner's logic ALL women should be homosexual since lesbian sex has the lowest chance of getting an STD.

[GrrlGoalie33]

"If you think you are not at risk, think again. What was once considered a "gay" disease affects people of any sex, of all ages and from all backgrounds. In fact, women and youth are two of the groups with the fastest growing rates of infection in Canada and around the world." www.aidscalgary.org

Also, for those who just don't understand why gays would want to marry, I encourage you to seek out the movie "If These Walls Could Talk 2". It features three stories about lesbian couples (sorry boys, no sex scenes). One of the stories features an older couple, one of whom dies quite suddenly and tragically. The treatment her partner received after losing the love of her life is also quite tragic. This story has been played out in real-life more than you can imagine.

As a married gay woman, I can tell you personally that separate is not equal.

To the folks that voted yes, thank you for your support. To those that voted no, I hope one day you can truly understand why it is so important that EVERYONE have the same rights.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Pinner

There wouldn't be human civilization if it was normal to be gay. Get it now? Real simple.

Well if we're going to play make believe then yes there still could be a civilization.. if gay marriage were the social norm and intercourse with the opposite sex happened simply for reproduction.

It's entirely possible for homosexuality to be beneficial biologically to a species at some level so evolution ensures it stays at that level.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Frankster

"If you think you are not at risk, think again. What was once considered a "gay" disease affects people of any sex, of all ages and from all backgrounds. In fact, women and youth are two of the groups with the fastest growing rates of infection in Canada and around the world." www.aidscalgary.org

Also, for those who just don't understand why gays would want to marry, I encourage you to seek out the movie "If These Walls Could Talk 2". It features three stories about lesbian couples (sorry boys, no sex scenes). One of the stories features an older couple, one of whom dies quite suddenly and tragically. The treatment her partner received after losing the love of her life is also quite tragic. This story has been played out in real-life more than you can imagine.

As a married gay woman, I can tell you personally that separate is not equal.

To the folks that voted yes, thank you for your support. To those that voted no, I hope one day you can truly understand why it is so important that EVERYONE have the same rights.

A. Marriage is not a right. It is a benefit afforded by the State because the State sees a benefit to the country in marriages occuring. Much like if you give money to certain organizations that fall under certain criteria set by the State you may recieve a portion of the money back at tax time. You can give to any organization you want but, the State only has an interest in giving you a tax credit for certain ones.

The real question is: Should the State see enough benefit in a same sex relationship to afford them that benefit? Another good question would be: What reason does the State have at all to benefit any particular relationship within society?

B. Your couple in the movie could have gotton power of attorney papers and wills drawn up. That is a good idea even for married couples. Also it is wise to put all property in both your names. People in common law relationships sometimes run into the same problems. We all are going to die. You would think we would be better prepared for the inevitable.